So, in an independent Confederacy there are guarantees in the constitution against abolishing slavery. The structure of the government is looser than the post-Civil War USA, as states have more power. There is only a tiny abolition movement operating out of the South, and it could easily be driven underground by public harassment.
There are federal guarantees against it, but nothing to stop
individual states from doing it.
I don't think the Confederacy will abolish for a very long time.
The Confederacy
can't abolish slavery at the federal level outside of a Constitutional amendment. That could only be realistic if every state abolished slavery at some point and there was no reason to see it return.
Like people have said, cotton-picking stops being worthwhile as a target for slave labor. Yet even if plantation slavery is given up, I see no reason for slavery to lose favor as an institution. Slaves could be turned into scrip workers, semi-sharecroppers or even factory laborers.
This gets us to the heart of the matter. What happens if plantation slavery starts to decline for any number of reasons? All of a sudden, you get a surplus of slave labor, which drives down the cost of slaves. This is good for you if you're in the market for slaves, right? Of course it is, but what's the market for slaves in this scenario? A decline in plantation slavery means there's only so much labor to do. It doesn't rule out smaller scale farming, which could keep the more well to do people in the market for slaves.
A surplus of slave labor means you can only sell so many slaves. Too many slaves and not enough work drives down the cost of slaves. So as a slave owner, you're stuck with decreasing value and increasing costs of keeping slaves. Sharecropping would replace slavery in this scenario, though a bit slowly.
This takes us into the 1930s at least. Certainly not before 1900. Around this point (give or take a decade depending on the CSA's economic progress) it might be more useful to use slaves as personal or household servants and less as labor. This might actually make slavery more widespread, since factory slaves would likely be owned by just a few slaveholders (just like plantations) but 1950s domestic slaves would be owned singly and would be within the budget of most middle class families. Instead of the quintessential 50's housewife with a washing machine, it might be a housewife relaxing while her slave cooks and cleans with the new appliances.
It's hard to say. There's no real statement here of how the CSA wins the war or even when. So it's a broad interpretation. An earlier end to the war makes things more difficult, though I think even then you'd see slavery in serious decline before the 1930's. A later victory could result from a number of different scenarios and it's hard to give a general answer. I still think anything beyond the 1930's except in the most extreme scenarios is difficult to predict with any plausibility. It's about the same as, I don't know, predicting an end to slavery in the 1880's outside of uniquely extreme scenarios.
So slavery holds in agriculture and free whites in Appalachia are reduced to mining for scrip. Sounds like a two-pronged rebellion! They would never coordinate, though.
Of course not. There was this nasty thing called racism.
I still think the CSA would be crushed by trade embargos.
On what basis? I think the boll weevil would cause a lot more pain and there's no real reason to have a trade embargo due to slavery prior to the Declaration of Human Rights. The United Kingdom certainly had no problems trading with the United States before the Confederacy seceded. Why would the UK suddenly decide to place an embargo on Confederate cotton, sugar or tobacco?
And I don't think there's any real reason for the Upper South not to rejoin the Union after abolition.
It kinds of makes the whole sacrifices of war pointless, don't you think? Some of the hardcore Unionists would probably leave anyway, but not all would leave. There certainly wouldn't be enough to justify a reunion with the USA short of re-conquest.
I don't think the Confederacy would have industrialized so long as it was a slave society. Sort of a catch-22. Rather, areas with a significant slave population would not.
The South
did have industry. Necessity would only make it more important. Slavery does not equal zero industrialization.
Industrialization could occur in Appalachia, what with the mining and whatnot, and that would be the main employment of the poor whites.
Sure it could. The discovery of oil would also spur the development in refineries in other places.
Indeed they would have to industrialize after it becomes difficult to procure goods from the North.
More importantly, the general idea is that it's cheaper to make the things you need internally rather than just import everything.